A jury has ruled that Instagram and YouTube are defective—what’s next?
Juries recently deemed social media platforms Instagram and YouTube to be legally defective, demanding tech companies be held accountable for their platforms’ harmful impacts. In two separate cases, juries in New Mexico and Los Angeles found Meta, Instagram’s parent company, and Google, YouTube’s parent company, liable for hundreds of millions of dollars due to their negative effects on minors. Both companies plan to appeal. These rulings are noteworthy as they challenge the protections provided by Section 230 and the First Amendment, which typically shield these platforms. However, the decisions could indicate a shift, considering the growing discontent with these major tech companies and the tangible damage they’ve caused to users.
If appeals do not overturn these verdicts, the companies could face multimillion-dollar penalties and potentially larger settlements in ongoing cases. These cases propose that social media platforms should be considered defective products, challenging the typical defenses they have relied on. Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who has pursued several early social media liability cases, described this moment as potentially transformative.
Activists aim to signal to tech companies that legal battles will persist unless they alter harmful practices. In New Mexico, jurors agreed that Meta’s statements about platform safety were misleading. The Los Angeles case held that Instagram and YouTube’s designs promoted addiction, leading to harm. Such cases could push these tech giants to tweak specific features, though it’s uncertain which actions are needed universally.
Legal expert Eric Goldman warned that these decisions indicate a rising readiness among juries to assign significant liability to social media providers. He emphasized that the judicial climate appears to be shifting regarding social media controversies, suggesting a different landscape from a decade ago.
Recent legislative actions in New York and California banning addictive features for teens further underscore this trend. These regulations remain intact even if appeals alter current verdicts.
Some envision positive changes, like phasing out features encouraging addiction, while others worry about unintended negative consequences. Critics argue the rulings could harm smaller networks and privacy features critical for users. In the New Mexico case, part of the argument involved Meta’s provision of end-to-end encryption, which it has since withdrawn from Instagram.
Blake Reid, a law professor, cautions against premature conclusions, suggesting companies may only minimally alter operations to circumvent liability. He notes these rulings could pose legal risks for smaller platforms but acknowledges existing market barriers to new players are already challenging.
Goldman and Reid caution that restricting social media access could adversely affect certain groups, like LGBTQ+ teens and those with autism. Complete removal of platforms may not be beneficial, given some evidence suggests moderate use can improve well-being. Even before the advent of algorithm-driven platforms, harmful behavior and communities existed online.
While holding tech giants like Meta accountable seems appealing, the broader implications for all users remain uncertain.